Cambridge is updating its Comprehensive Plan, a long-term guide for growth, sustainability, and quality of life. Covering land use, housing, transportation, the environment, and economic development, the plan is intended to help preserve the city’s unique character while addressing key priorities like affordable housing, climate resilience, and economic diversity. The public can follow the process and provide input to the plan at a series of workshops that kick off Monday and continue all week.

Members of the Planning Committee, headed by Director Brian Herrmann, say that public input is essential to ensure the vision reflects the community’s values. Aligned with the Maryland Planning Act, the plan will guide Cambridge’s future through 2045, building a vibrant, inclusive, and sustainable city.

The Spy sat down with Herrmann and Planner II Dean Gunderson to discuss the plan as well as public engagement opportunities, of which there will be many. The conversation has been edited for length and emphasis.

What’s the purpose of the comprehensive plan?

BRIAN HERRMANN: Overall, the plan is intended to establish a foundation in every element. Whether that’s housing, economic development, for the future of the city. It’s a 10-year plan with a 20-year window, and it’s required by the state. . . . We literally use the information that we gather in the plan to write our zoning code, for instance. . . . We’ll look back to what information came out of the comprehensive plan and use that to kind of establish a foundation for the zoning code, which is obviously what affects everybody on a day-to-day basis.

DEAN GUNDERSON: It’s the community’s vision for itself: Where does it want to be in 20 years, knowing that we’re going to touch [the plan] again in 10? But it also lays the administrative framework or bedrock for all subsequent city policies, whether it relates to parks or housing or land use, even policing. . . .  It touches every aspect of local governance. . . . Even things that might be more esoteric, like ecological sustainability. . . . How do we deal with potential rising sea levels? How do we deal with episodic emergencies, hurricanes, etcetera? And you’ll find those issues will all be addressed in a comprehensive plan.

Dean, you said that you’re going to touch the plan again in 10 years. So, it’s not going to make it to 2045 in the form that you’re developing now?

GUNDERSON: Right. State of Maryland says you want to look out to a 20-year horizon, but it requires that you update your comprehensive plan every 10 years.

HERRMANN: However, the city’s previous comp plan was done in 2011, and it should have been theoretically rewritten in, say, ‘21, ‘22. But COVID hit. That caused a little bit of a skirmish and the state actually gave cities a little bit of a leeway. . . .  But yes, it’s a 10-year window. And so, if we get everything rolling in the right direction, in 10 years, we should be coming along and updating the plan again.

GUNDERSON: Think of the comprehensive plan as like a savings plan for your hope for wonderful retirement years. You’re going to touch that every once in a while as you get closer to retirement to make sure, are your plans working? . . .  Because there’s stuff that can impact things like interest rates and everything else. So, you want to be able to touch it again to make sure that your investments are in the right area. The comprehensive plan, think of it as like a community savings account where it’s wanting to achieve a certain vision. But the sensible, appropriate thing is to touch it usually at the halfway point to make sure that, are you heading in the right direction?

How’s the plan being funded?

HERRMANN: The city’s actually funding it just through its normal budget. . . .  $200,000 was allotted for the plan. We’re not quite spending that much, but we put out an RFQ, request for qualifications, for firms to bid on — basically send in their application on how they could help us with the comp plan. We put together a committee and we selected the firm that we felt was the most appropriate, which is Able City. They’ll be coming in and helping us.

How much of an impact will public feedback and involvement have on the plan?

HERRMANN: A huge impact. The firm that we’ve chosen uses sort of what they call a new urbanist approach to things. And one of those approaches is, when you engage the public, you use what’s called a charrette. It’s just a week-long workshop. Basically there’s three phases to that charrette process. . . . Monday night, there’ll be an opening over at 447 Race St. . . . We’ll have an opening presentation. People will have the opportunity to vote on their phones for different images projected on a slide projector or a PowerPoint projector. And then they’ll all see maps at the tables where people can draw. Like, “Hey, this is an area of the city that definitely needs some love and care,” and then usually what happens at the end of that process, each table will elect someone and they’ll get up and just say like, “Hey, I’m Joe Smith, and we decided to focus on this area of the city because we feel like it’s a major [concern],” or maybe housing.

And so, there’s a wonderful engagement process initially to kind of get people into the process. Then Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday we’re over at 322 Gay Street, and the team will be holding two or three meetings a day, looking at specific topics like economic development or housing, things like that. And we do have some groups of folks that we’ve listed to kind of attend those meetings. And then also anybody from the public can just walk in and give [input]. . . .  I mean, we try to address everything that comes through that planning process.

And then the closing is over at the Elks Lodge [on Friday]. . . .  There’ll be a PowerPoint presentation again. And then there’ll also be pin-ups all the way around the walls of different drawings and renderings of what was conveyed. . . .  And so folks can go and take a look like, “Oh, here’s what they’re proposing for the new City Hall” or whatever it is and make comments and feedback. . . .  The process continues on after this week-long charrette, but this is the big public-engagement process.

And then following that, there’s obviously back and forth with the team, and we have a committee that we’ve set up that we’ll obviously run everything through and make sure that the city feels like they’re getting exactly what we felt was conveyed during the charrette. And then there’s also the Planning Commission, and we have to go through that process, and that has to be approved through them.

GUNDERSON: Think of the charrette as that first really intensive public-engagement feedback opportunity that entire week. In fact, that Friday event is not referred to as a closing. It’s a work-in-progress presentation, and people are the consultant, and we want to hear people’s feedback on what the consultant heard through that week because that’s their opportunity to say, “Hey, this is what we heard. Did we hear it right?”

HERRMANN: So, the way the city normally does the comp plan is, we go out, we engage a firm to come in and help us write it, because it would take all of our time if we had to do it. And so, the staff will be there, and they’ve stated that, I think, at least six members of their team will be here. And then they have at least 10 or 12 working on the plan. … I know who’s on that team and we have a fantastic team. I’m really excited about that, too.

Who comprises the planning team?

HERRMANN: Specifically it’s Jason King. He’s technically the leader of Able City, and his wife, Pam. They’re sort of the two big folks, and they’ll definitely be here in person. They are the consulting team.

On your website it said that the planning team will be managing the charrette.

HERRMANN: Yeah, that refers to the consulting team.

GUNDERSON: So, it’s Able City, but Able City also has sub-consultants, specialists in, like, transportation and different factors so that those are separate professional firms that are sub-consulting to Able City, but they’ll all be there.

HERRMANN: Wade Walker is like a transportation expert. He’s sort of nationally known, and he’ll be coming in to handle transportation issues in the city. But he has his own firm and he’s a sub-consultant. He’ll be joining Able City as part of this process.

You gave me some general ideas about what’s going to happen at the charrette. Can you provide some specifics about the hands-on workshops and interactive design sessions?

HERRMANN: On the opening night, they’ll have like a PowerPoint presentation, and you’ll get your phones out, and you can basically log into a site and decide, do you like A or do you like B? They’ll show pictures, like, of two types of housing or two types of parks or two types of streets, and which do you like better? So, there’s some public engagement there. . . . Then the table acts exercises with the maps. The folks at the tables will obviously pick out places that they feel are in need of help in the city. And so, I guess we’re talking about a very physical element at this point. But they will convey exactly what they’d like to see.

GUNDERSON: The feedback may not even be restricted to physical elements of the city or specific locations. People may come in and say, “We don’t think there’s fair representation in the decision-making process about where money goes or where physical improvements ultimately end up going.” And that’s a legitimate feedback, so that gets rolled into the comprehensive plan, and you see goals, objectives, and strategies. Maryland requires your comprehensive plan to be written that way. And a goal is like just a vision statement.

Will there be other opportunities for public input besides the charrette?

HERRMANN: Yeah, absolutely. The website has a survey on there that you can fill out. . . .  Obviously [the charrette is] the big hallmark event. But then the website will be up. People can continue to comment through that. People can continue to come in and talk to us. We’re talking about maybe doing some follow-up events, maybe with some churches and in some of the neighborhoods, just to see if we can make sure we don’t miss anybody.

GUNDERSON: [The charrette] is just the first step, really intensive public engagement. Then there’s the whole writing of what I call the rough draft, the initial draft. Those iterations get published on the website, and there’s further public input, but it’s not in that intensive environment. And then, once it’s ready for adoption, then it’s incumbent upon us as staff to take it through the whole public adoption process. And those are public meetings. . . .  And then there’s a step where you have to present it to the state.

HERRMANN: There’ll be a whole process where the Planning Commission ultimately has to give a recommendation of approval, essentially that they find the comprehensive plan to be to their liking, so to speak. … And then, as Dean said, you also have to send it off to the state and the state has to review it and make sure that it’s meeting all their standards. . . . And then it comes back and then ultimately has to be adopted by the City Council, obviously. . . . But that’s sort of down the road a little bit. And, [at the] Planning Commission meeting, there’s always public comment and there’s opportunities for people to make comments.

GUNDERSON: And all of those sessions are live-streamed, too. And people don’t necessarily have to show up in person. They can just dial in.

How long will the survey be available on the website?

HERRMANN: It’ll definitely be up through the whole charrette and probably for about another month or two. We’re hoping to have the whole process wrapped up by the first of the year. . . .  So, I would say that anything that’s online should be up through at least October, and sometimes you will just keep stuff up because a comment will come in at the tail end and we’re like, “Hey, this is really makes sense.”

GUNDERSON: Yeah, there may be a new version of a survey that goes out once a draft version has been crafted. The consultant and we may find that it’s very necessary for us to say, “Hey, let’s ask the general community that takes the time to read the entire document. What is their specific feedback on these issues?”

How optimistic are you about this plan?

HERRMANN: I’m extremely optimistic. . . .  I’ve seen what the city’s done in the past and sort of how the city’s approached these processes, and actually the last comp plan was very well done. . . .  And so, I feel like we can build off of that. . . .  The biggest thing that I’m always concerned about, it’s just making sure that we get as many people, and they’re reflective of the whole community. . . .  And so, it’s our job as a staff to make sure we’re getting the word out to everyone, no matter where they live, no matter what their economic background is.

For more information and to take the survey, go to plancambridgemd.com.

Cambridge Mayor Lajan Cephas presides over the City Council meeting on July 28.

In contrast to the previous meeting, the July 28 City Council session ran nearly on time, in part because the agenda was lighter and there were no public comments. However, one significant portion of the evening clearly showed how cautiously the Council approaches spending money, even on necessities. This was centered around a request by Chief Brad Walters of the Rescue Fire Company (RFC) for a new engine.

Walters asked for the purchase of apparatus replacement for the oldest engine company in the fleet, which is 33 years old. Projected cost: $1.38 million. He said that they have regularly used Pierce Manufacturing for RFC’s equipment but that there are a number of other manufacturers available. (He later added that Pierce is ideal because their pricing is better and they have a service center in Salisbury.)

“But you get what you pay for,” he said, explaining that a fire company could go to the “low end” and get five to six years from the apparatus or go to the “high end” and get decades from it, as they have from the engine under discussion. He admitted that there are costs associated with keeping the equipment going so long: over the past three years, the oldest engine has required spending $150,000 for repairs with another $20,000 projected.

Walters warned that the price of new engines will continue to climb while the Council waits to approve the purchase. The last one bought for RFC, in 2015, cost $575,000. So, he recommended securing a Fiscal Year 2026 contract to lock in current pricing. If the city were to prepay 100 percent now, it would save $184,000. Or payment could be deferred until the apparatus arrives in three years.

The chief cited the company’s aging equipment and rising maintenance costs before saying, “It’s gonna get worse until we do something.”

Following Walters’ remarks, Ward 1 Commissioner Brett Summers asked City Manager Glenn Steckman and Finance Director Perry Peregoy for suggestions on how to pay for the new apparatus. Steckman stated bluntly that the city isn’t in a position to front $1.25 million. He mentioned a request that is in to U.S. Senators Chris Van Hollen and Angela Alsobrooks and Representative Andy Harris for funding, which has yet to be answered.

Then the city manager asked the Council a question of his own: Do you want to support a volunteer fire company? “[New equipment] helps them, they believe, in their recruitment and retention of membership. If we had to pay for a full-time fire department, it would cost us millions.”

When Peregoy put in that there may be some financing options, Ward 5 Commissioner Brian Roche reminded the Council of the millions needed for HVAC repairs and failing sewer maintenance.

Summers said he was surprised to see the apparatus request on the evening’s agenda, as he’d thought the city’s $13 million in American Rescue Plan Act money from the COVID era had taken care of such capital improvements.

“We didn’t recklessly spend the money,” quickly replied Council President Sputty Cephas, who was on the Council during the epidemic.

Walters said he wasn’t expecting a vote on the request that night, but he hoped for a decision soon, as the price for the apparatus would increase $8,400 on August 1.

Ward 2 Commissioner Shay Lewis-Cisco stated her belief that the equipment was needed, and she referenced the uptick in incidents RFC has had to respond to. But she did want to know from Walters what benefit there would be in the Council’s decision now, besides saving on maintenance costs. He replied that, even if RFC was a paid organization, they would still need four engine companies for rotation during maintenance periods. Additionally, they wouldn’t be forced to build new parts for the outdated 1992 engine if they knew a new one was coming.

Summers asked why Dorchester County doesn’t provide more funding for the fire department, and Walters answered that the county carries coverage for workers’ compensation. Plus, most of the service calls for RFC are in Cambridge, and companies from other communities in Dorchester help them at times.

After receiving assurance from Walters that RFC doesn’t need “bells and whistles” for their engines, Mayor Lajan Cephas asked Steckman if action was needed immediately. The city manager reminded her that approval that night would save $8,400 on the purchase. He added that they would then have 30 days to decide how to pay, an answer for which he and his staff couldn’t give right away.

Summers made a motion for a committee — to include Steckman, Peregoy, the mayor, Walters, and two commissioners — for formulating a plan, which would then be returned to the Council. “I mean, this is a big acquisition. I think there needs to be some discussion and some meeting and really thinking through this.” Roche seconded the motion.

At that point, Steckman appeared to get frustrated. He said that financing the purchase wasn’t an issue for that night, and he added, “I don’t know how the group can get together and figure out how to save.”

Lewis-Cisco then said that “we’d be getting into the weeds” with Summers’ proposed committee, though she agreed a plan was needed.

Stating his fear that purchasing the engine could be followed by “something crazy” happening that would require money they couldn’t then get, Sputty Cephas asked, “Do we bankrupt the city?” He felt that more discussion was needed. The Council didn’t want to compromise citizens’ lives, he was quick to state, but he believed they had a responsibility to safeguard the city’s money.

When called on for his comments, Roche proposed that the city staff present a comprehensive report on how to pay for the engine. Then he asked why this request wasn’t included in their discussions about the annual budget that had just been passed. Steckman started to reply, but Roche said, “You don’t need to answer. It’s a rhetorical question.”

Walters did have an answer, however. The request for the new engine hadn’t just been “sprung on” the Council. The chief had pushed the need “many, many times.” In fact, it had been Number 1 on his capital improvement plan for three years.

Summers then amended his motion, based on Roche’s comments: Staff was to bring the Council a financing plan to consider by the end of August. All commissioners approved the motion.